> Looking at the video from logical analysis I would say that there are several fallacies here:
> Formal: Failure to give an argument. You simply state what you think is true without anything to back up this idea.
> Informal: Shifting burden of proof. (Inferred) people might see you saying to prove you wrong / give you evidence you are wrong is a shift of burden of proof. I say inferred because its not outright.
> Informal: Mind reading/special knowledge: that people who say "destigmatize" are doing so for (X) reason. No one can know what reason any given person has for doing (X) thing.
> --mind reading/special knowledge is a logical fallacy that I've come up with (it might have an actual fallacy that is agreed upon that I am unaware of) the fallacy is when someone says they know why person did/did not do (X) or what a person was thinking or what a person's intent was. To know such a thing would take special knowledge or the ability to mind read, hence the name(s) of the fallacy. --
>
> These are my conclusions for this video and I hope that you find my input and critical feedback to be of use to you, I still would love to talk logic with you at some point. 🙂
@Deconverted Man the video is colloquial. I am not claiming "no one is normalizing pedophilia " to 100% certainty. If I say there is no Santa Clause, I don't follow it up with my logical argument formation. The inference is nonsensical. Your made up logical fallacy is not a logical fallacy for good reason. I didn't make a claim to have special knowledge or am able to read minds. That's all nonsense.
